'HS2 can bring benefits to London and the North'

Monday 9 September 2013 10:26 BST

HS2 can bring similar benefits to those achieved by the “phenomenal” success of the Channel Tunnel link, it was suggested today.

Amid mounting criticism by MPs of the high-speed railway, Nicola Shaw, chief executive of High Speed One, said the 67-mile Channel Tunnel link had brought mainline Europe closer to the UK and led to a “radical transformation” of journey times for London-bound Kent commuters.

She said planners met opposition on the £5.8 billion scheme three decades ago and it was part of the growing pains of such a project — but London stood to benefit from HS2: “London is a huge global economy and it allows better connectivity for people coming to London and vice versa.

“You get the benefit in the North of better connections but we get the benefit in London too of those connections. On HS1 you see that with the development of Ashford — people being able to get there but similarly lots of people commute in [to London] on HS1 on Southeastern.” Her comments came as the influential Public Accounts Committee published a withering report which claimed that ministers had failed to show that HS2 would provide value for its £50 billion budget or that there would be sufficient passenger demand.

Parliament’s watchdog added that the 2015 deadline for gaining parliamentary approval for the route linking London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds was unrealistic and that costs, which thus year rose by £10 billion, may increase further.

But Transport secretary Patrick McLoughlin said: “The case for HS2 is absolutely clear: without it, the key rail routes connecting London, the Midlands and the North will be overwhelmed. The project will free up vital space on our railways for passengers and freight, generate hundreds of thousands of jobs and deliver better connections between our towns and cities.”

Ms Shaw added: “I’m convinced of the need for capacity and that its the option we want because to upgrade the West Coast Mainline again would be so disruptive to the economy and very expensive and very difficult to do.”